1: Vietnamesse(Xich Quy- Van Lang) Hong Bang dynasty, they have good foot archer, infantry their still get the cavalry + elephant war. Viet history wrote they were used to defeated shang army( but chinese history write shang won) otherwise Viet( Hong Bang dynasty) are good choice if compare with Choson and Yamato dynasty.
2: Spartan: Must split with Greek, they are not greek. They were a best civil inside the ancient of Greece ( include Roma, Macce, Phonician, minos) they were defeated Persian, Athena( if got better king and polittical they maybe become the great Spartan empires first not macce or rome ) why not put in they in aoe1?second choice
3: German get good infantry + skirmishers, used to defeated 100.000 legion of roma. So need 1 choice more
4: Britton, get chariot and fight together roma in southern britton, help built long wall for roma fought choice
5:Gauls same britton and they they are quite good in war with roma. Although lose but they are important department in roma army after. So fifth choice for aoe1.
3 unit need create on aoe1 for true aoe1 time.
1 skirmishers and cavalry skirmishers normal unit in ancient time so why not appear in aoe1 and appear in aoe2?
2: Ram same skirmishers need for more choice in game, and it important like scorpion and onager.
3: maybe we need improve the light cavalry of aoe1?
They are Greek the same way Macedonians are
No Ć“n, they are not Greece, if they are greece maccedonia, minos, phonicia, roma it too. And Sparta was better Greek at all. Cavalry archer, hoplite, shiled sword manā¦
Mauryans come first, specially for an Elephant civ.
Why?
There is already Greeks AND Macedonians.
Would rather have Celts and Scythians, or even Dacians. Germanians are OK as a civ, but they only became relevant way late into the timeframe, even as enemies of Rome.
Just an umbrella Celts civ would suffice, with an Heavy Axeman and Heavy Cavalry (Gauls), Scythe Chariots and a good bonus to them (Britonni) and a Heavy Slinger with a bonus to it (Celtiberians).
All in just one civ, and it would be perfect.
Maybe as an Academy unit, we could have a Peltast, that improves into an Auxiliar in the Iron Age.
The game already has Cavalry Skirmishers, they are the Chariot Archers.
They are the fast Trash unit you make to out-skirmish Gold Ranged units, in the long run.
Not needed, because we have Hoplites, which already perform the function of the Ram and the Spearman.
War Elephants also do the Ram bit.
Yes, and the base Bowman. Scout and Bowmen, just like Axeman and Slinger, should have a Bronze Age upgrade.
Spartans belonged to the same ethnic group of other cities states like Athens or Thebes and so on. Macedonians instead were different enough to justify having their own civ.
Yeah Iām tired of playng with placeholder in the roman campains, you could trow in there even some barbaric tribes, like huns of goths, or more arcaic cultures, like the etruscan.
They could fit, maybe with also some indians and african cultures too.
I thinks he refers to tribes like the marcomanni, or the tribes that ambushed the roman legions at the teutoburg forest, all put together in one civ.
Better than nothing for sure, and if this would mean to include more culture it woul make sense.
All good ideas. God there would be so much to add to AoE1ā¦
Itās debatable wheter it was the best one or not. It had its period of egemony, like a lot of other city states, not longher not shorter. I think that after the movie 300 the spartans simply became a trope.
Also, big no to CA for them, they never fought that way. They used the classic hoplite, like all other greek city states.
Do I need to point them on a map so you can see how far away those place are to grece? So you can see that itās perfectly reasonable for them to their own civs unlike greeks/sparta.
2: Spartan: Must split with Greek, they are not greek. They were a best civil inside the ancient of Greece ( include Roma, Macce, Phonician, minos) they were defeated Persian, Athena( if got better king and polittical they maybe become the great Spartan empires first not macce or rome ) why not put in they in aoe1
There are already 3 Greek civs with Greeks, Macedonia and Minoans.
Viet was get heavy cavalry too and they are belong to east asia culture, appear same time with shang. Look at the 0AD game, I know need add more civil Mauryan just same german, Gaul, Britton ā¦ all need appear here.
But Spartan never was greek you need to know, if roma, macce can appear here Spartan need get this hornor.
And I deagree chariot was cheaper archer cavalry and skir need for civil not get chariot can fight back chariot civil, need they get melle damage, shorter range
And Sparta is the most importan
The abandonned indie game that has 0 players?
I know 0AD, I even supported it, but it is just getting nowhere.
Too much focus on being immersive (Vills even have different gather rates depending on gender) and too little on being fun and balanced.
Also, 0AD has the Mauryans, they were added in long ago, as they should, as the greatest culture in Ancient India, and one of the most advanced in the world, at the time.
Wrong, Spartans were Greeks. They were Mycenean descendants and hellenistic too, just like ALL the other Greeks.
Just because they were a seperate city state, does not mean they were a different civilization altogether.
Never look minos, roma, and macee Sparta was split county. Seperrate culture civil
Being a different country does not mean you have a different civilization.
Spartans were Greeks.
Yes they were, Spartans came from Sparta, a city state in Greece. If they are separate from Greece than Athens are too. So are all of these Category:Greek city-states - Wikipedia
conclusion? We must transform AoE1 into Age of Greek City States
Ok so:
Fogot to write it into the picture, but the the blue square with sparta in it should represent the area considered greek in that time.
I hope this clear some doubts. First of all, Rome has nothing to do with the greek world, until they conquered it. So stop bring it on bacause it makes literally 0 sense.
Macedonians were considered a semi-barbaric culture from the greeks, and thought little of them. The same didnāt happened between for example sparta or athens, that despite their differences, they didnāt thought their etnic group to be superion of the other. Also, the army of macedon was different from the army of the other greek states, and it was an absolute kingdom, while other greek city states had at least some sort of an democratic/oligarchic rule.
As for the minoans, well they simply were a culture way more ancient even of the mycenaean greeks. They received little influence from the mainland culture, and has always been a bridge between greece, egypt and anatolia. They too were divided in different kingdoms inside the islands, and fought primarily as archers and marines, not in the hoplite form.
Now letās see instead the differences of sparta from other greek city states like athens, or thebes, and so on:
- They spoke the same language of other city states, have similar cultures, laws and customs, and they worshipped the same gods.
- They had 2 kings, which were mainly placeholders, since they had little to no power. The real power was detained by a council of 5 oligarchs, and could be overuled only by a wider council of all spartans.
- They fought in an hoplite style formation, much like any other greek states until Philip II.
- They had a feudal sistem instead of using slaves, which wasnāt a big difference, and it also was its downfall.
- Their military strength and prowess was mostly a mith, and they didnāt see themselvs as a bunch of super-soldiers, and neither did the other city states. Their only advantege was that they had a social class that was dedicated only to war, since it lived on a feudal sistem. Those individual could train for all their lives, but it also meant that they were precious, so much that sparta avoided any conflict that wasnāt really necessary, since having a bit portion of this class killed in battle may mean the collapse of spartan society.
So, seeing how the aoe1 civs are structured, there is no reason to differentiate the spartans from the other greeks.
This could be a intresting discussion, so please donāt spam the same thing over and over just in an attempt to get what you want or prove a point that you canāt prove.
Itās funny that you compare Romans with Spartans, when Rome is a totally different culture, whose capital is on the Italian peninsula, while Spartans are literally Greek.
In the Glory of Greece campaign we played as Athens, and in one of the scenarios we faced Sparta. They are just two city-states of the same ācivilization.ā The game manages civilizations.
The case of Macedonia is different, since they are relevant in a later period, from Alexander the Great, even its army was made up of phalanxes and peltasts, and after the conquests they incorporated elephants. They are totally different from classical Greeks.
And what about Minos, it is an island that shares very little with mainland Greece, and its heyday is much earlier. If you look at it, its architecture is not even similar.
On the other hand, how much can you differentiate the civs to put Sparta as a separate civ. Greeks already have cheap and fast hoplites, bad archery, full siege, and good ships. It is everything that the Greek army of any city represents.
You know the devs never add the civs the people want but the ones they want and besides we donāt know if we are ever getting new civs.
I am one of those who believe that there will never be anything new. I was just making my point about the Spartans.
I think itās highly unlikely that there will be any new civs for AoE I, but itās always interesting to see suggestions for them.
Makes sense, since there are so few east Asian civs. From your description, it sounds like they would play quite similarly to Persians though. How would you make them different? (I suppose they wouldnāt get Horse Archers, but they would get fully upgraded Composite Bowmen, which would make them a bit different from Persians.)
This is an incredibly bold claim. If you think the Spartans were not Greek, what do you think āGreekā means? And how would the Spartan tech tree be different from the existing Greek one?
I guess the answer is that they already are in AoE I, as Greeks?
Sensible suggestion, especially since various Germanic tribes feature in the campaigns already (at least Goths and Alemanni), rather confusingly represented by Greeks and Palmyrans, I think.
Maybe just group them together as Celts? Otherwise, Iām not sure what the difference would be in their tech trees. Again, they already feature in the campaigns, but with weird civ choices.
The āobviousā thing would be for skirmishers to upgrade from slingers, but perhaps that would be too powerful. No Tool Age units upgrade in the Bronze/Iron Ages, and I guess that was deliberate.
Hmmm, this makes sense from a thematic point of view, but buildings in AoE I are pretty weak compared with those in AoE II, so Iām not sure why anyone would actually use a slow unit that is only really any good against buildings.
Perhaps, but what would make them different (gameplay-wise) from Cavalry and Chariots?
When are these discussions about history gonna end? AoE was never a game about 100% historical accuracy itās about making something as boring as history fun.
Sure, itās not 100% historically accurate, but itās not 0% historically accurate either. Do you really think that civ designs should have no historical basis at all?
Complaining that there are discussions about history on a forum for a series of history-themed games seems like a lost cause to meā¦
You knowledge better than me so much, and yes but Spartan just be slav too much time and teretory of spartan lostg too much time. Until to last time survive they never call theyself by greek like you said